booz...i've taken upon myself to explain some stuff...after 20 years of property investing it is only right that some things are made clear to you !
'ere goes:
'bundaberg thing' is a case of multiples of citizens income ..."in the region"....
i think declared income levels in bundy are fairly low (pensioners,socsec payments...who knows) and as such it has come out that it takes a 'local' most years in Bundy to buy a house !
i know that houses there are a quarter of the prices in sydney, but it must be that earnings are a fifth or sixth of those in sydney as well so you see how it would take longer to pay off a house in Bundy...(if you were to live there full time and NOT just retire there)...
now, as far as the 'rents thing' is concerned...
in procentages of average wage it is probably cheaper than in the sixties and seventies but you are not taking into account todays 'rentals' and 'seventies rentals'...
mcmansions do and should cost more to rent simply due to the size of the 'rental' and 'state' of a rental...(compared to garages, rooms and other kinds of shacks that people were living in 30 years ago...)
'shortage' in rental properties was also just a 'perceived one' (and amplified by RE industry "payed for" media) and it extended solely to a 'renovated' or 'decently refurbished' properties AND mainly in inner city suburbs (10 km ring around city in sydney...for example)...
at any given time there was plenty of 'property' on offer for rent...it's just that it was 'rubbish' and 'howells' that people, who were raised on 'lifestyle' and 'renovation' shows, wouldn't dream of living in...and good for them !!! this is the 'first world'...isn't it?
i was going to explain the 'oversupply' but this post is getting too long and im starting to sound too selfimportant so...im leaving you to somebody else or...yourself ! cheers
